• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Field of Ufology


Realm

Paranormal Adept
To use your analogy ( again ), the library or course material at an astronomy department could easily make mention of astronomy comics as a facet of Astronomy History and it's impact on culture. Or I could ask you the same question I asked Morrison. Do you really thing the fictional film Close Encounter of the Third Kind has nothing to do with ufology?
Having something to do with is not the same as being part of.

A picture of a car has something to do with the car, but it's not part of that car. The steering wheel of that car is part of that car, a picture of that steering wheel isn't. The driver of that car has something to do with the car, but is not part of that car. The definition of that car is that actual car and the parts that it has, not those pictures or other stuff that just happens to have something to do with it.

It's just the same with fields like astronomy. Some things are actually part of it, others just have something to do with it. It makes no sense to claim some cartoon is astronomy if it has some picture of a star in it.
 

Realm

Paranormal Adept
Argue it with this guy instead: Astronomy Comics
The question that is actually being asked is: What is (part of) astronomy/ufology?
You try to answer by listing things that have something to do with them. That is not the same question, those are not answers to the question that was asked. It can't be this hard.

It's like somebody is asking: What parts does that car contain?
And you answer: This picture of that car. And me, as I'm the driver.
Does that make sense?

A comic about astronomy has something to do with astronomical research, it is not part of astronomical research, it is not astronomical research, hence it is not astronomy, because that word means astronomical research.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
I understand why you want to include all of the ancillary paraphernalia about ufology under the umbrella of ufology: because the field of ufology isn’t really even a field yet. So 99% of what we have is the pop culture rubbish that has flooded in to fill the void. But the word “ufology” simply means “the study of ufos,” because that’s what a “-logy” is, a field of study, like biology or archaeology or psychology.
-logy,
1. a combining form used in the names of sciences or bodies of knowledge:
paleontology; theology.
logy - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

So including stuff like the film Men In Black under “ufology” is just as crazy as including Jurassic Park under “biology.” The cultural stuff that’s about a field of study, isn’t the field of study itself.

But since we have basically no way to study ufos properly, your David Wilcock’s and your Bob Lazar’s and your “Dr. Jonathan Reed’s” and the whole rotten bestiary of self-made celebrities have carved out a niche where an actual science should be taking place. The way forward isn’t to embrace those people. The way forward is to create an actual scientific discipline that places them in the category of “irrelevant opportunistic distractions” where they belong.

Taken seriously by who?
Anyone. Well, anyone who isn’t a witness, or among the handful of non-witnesses who actually believe them. Academics of any flavor aren’t going to take ufology seriously until it involves real data being analyzed by professionals.

Simply because a minority of the population composed of "nasty noisy negativists" ( as Friedman calls them ) in the Science Faculty don't take ufology seriously doesn't mean it can't be treated academically in other faculties.
You’re mistaken to cast the science community in the role of an adversary. Because 1.) an actual data-driven scientific approach to ufology is the only sensible path forward, and 2.) no other academic discipline is any more favorable to the idea of ufology (and for the exact same reason that scientists aren’t favorable to it – there’s insufficient objective precision data to properly analyze and debate). Look at the trouble John Mack got into at Harvard - psychologists are just as hostile to ufology as your average physicist (although, interestingly, a high percentage of the best physicists and aerospace engineers find the subject fascinating - though of course they won't talk about it publicly because that would be career suicide).

The nuts and bolts aspect of ufology is totally cool. I get that. It's what makes the rest so interesting. At the heart of it all is a real world mystery and not simply myth. But at the same time, the field has expanded beyond the nuts and bolts investigation
No, it hasn’t “expanded beyond the nuts and bolts investigation,” because a proper scientific investigation has never taken place. So all of the bogus sensationalistic swill has flooded in to fill the void. We're still at square one because we have insufficient data to begin the analytical process. People have simply branched out because there's no way to proceed in the right direction at present.

So let's be fair about this. I give you credit where credit is due, and we agree pretty much completely with respect to the part of the field that is your main interest. I just take a more holistic approach, but I'm getting the feeling that you think that is a total waste of time. Have I got that right? How can we fix that?
Before we understood meteors, people in the Dark Ages would see them, and in lieu of an actual scientific discipline to investigate them and explain them, all kinds of pop culture dreck swirled around the subject: some people told stories about devils coming to the Earth, in order to explain meteors. Others told stories about angels falling from Heaven. Others still promoted stories about the fairie folk.

Were stories about devils and angels and fairies therefore legitimate aspects of the study of meteors? Of course not – all that rubbish was just the culture of the time filling the void where an actual scientific study needed to be taking place. And that’s where we are with ufology right now – in the Dark Ages, because the data required for a proper scientific study has been withheld from the public for the last 70+ years, and we've never stepped up to solve that problem for ourselves.

I wouldn't worry about that unless you're concerned about someone stealing your idea and beating you to doing it first. Personally I don't really care about that. If I have an idea I just launch it out there and if the universe decides it's going to land on someone else who will do it, perfect! It saves me the time and money and effort, and I can still go back and point to where I thought of it first ... lol.
It’s one thing when you just have an idea; it’s another thing entirely once you’ve invested thousands of hours and dollars into finding an idea worth testing, and then designed and built an experiment. At that point the last thing you want is somebody with greater resources to beat you to it because you foolishly broadcast it over the internet for anyone to find. And there are usually at least 9 good reasons to think that it won’t work, and maybe 1 good reason to think that it will, so talking about it before you run an exploratory experiment only gives your critics a heap of ammunition to bust your chops about it. The only thing that counts in the end anyway is solid empirical data.

There are days I really wish I had my own single photon double slit lab to play with though.
You could do that; it’s not that difficult or expensive:

I just don’t know why you would – so many people have already performed that experiment. So I would think it would only be worth doing if you had a new twist to try out.

There You've probably already seen me mention that way back in the early 90s I went onto a discussion board at MIT and suggested they run experiments with superconducting magnets and weigh scales. Then someone in Russia actually did the experiments. Maybe there's no connection, but I wish I'd known then how to make screen grabs! I find the whole antigravity quest fascinating as well. I know those first experiments have been highly criticized by the scientific community, but I still think that the key is in something to do with rotating EM fields and superconductors. So here's my latest thinking on that ( I came up with it about 5 years ago ).
You must be referring to Podkletnov’s experiments at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland. It’s been twenty years and that guy still hasn’t reproduced the results of his experiment and nobody else has either, so I see no reason to accept his claims.

But I strongly suspect that Ning Li has made real progress. Her work is classified though. And it's a different sort of beast than what Podkletnov was trying to do (in fact I don't recall that he even had a theory to work from - it looks to me like he was throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if something would stick, and then he probably just misinterpreted his results, which is very easy to do if you're not extremely careful and objective).

There So my suggestion is that instead of rotating the magnet, rotate the fields instead. Read this PDF: https://www.celeroton.com/fileadmin/user_upload/technologie/publications/IEEE_Publication_Megaspeed.pdf With a stable field rotating at GHz speeds something is going to happen ( get your radiation suits on ... lol ) and who knows, maybe then the effect claimed might manifest in a way that is undeniable. See. It's not so hard to just put whacky crazy ideas out there. Feel free to build one and let me know how it goes. In the meantime good luck with your effort!
Thanks man. Mostly I’m just happy when I can get a good signal-to-noise ratio so I don’t have to run an experiment a thousand times for a definitive statistical result. But it would be pretty sweet if I found a new effect someday. All one can do is to keep looking in weird little areas that others haven’t already tried out a thousand times before, and see if you stumble upon something useful in the process.

High-frequency rotating magnetic fields have been studied pretty exhaustively at this point, and I don’t see any reason to think that we’ll find any surprises at higher energies. Life is short and experiments are long and expensive, so I only get busy on a new project when I have some reason to think that I might find something interesting. I recently had another idea that I want to experiment with when this one’s finished, but I’m dreading the cost of it. But I actually have a clear theoretical model to start with so it’s definitely something I’ll have to try. I think you'd be surprised at how difficult it is to come up with an interesting new idea - it can take years, even decades of intensive study and theorizing to come up with a single novel idea that's worth trying out. In fact most people never come up with a single one - the internet is littered with the bones of people who tried and failed to come up with one good new idea in their lifetimes.

It is frustrating to not be able to discuss interesting prospective experiments, because that's the most exciting aspect of all this, for me anyway. But when you've invested roughly 40 years of your time and energy and money into an effort to solve an extremely challenging puzzle in an innovative way, then actually come up with a promising idea that you can test out yourself and plan do so, it would be incredibly stupid to talk about it. And ultimately pointless, because the only thing that matters is the result.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
-logy,
1. a combining form used in the names of sciences or bodies of knowledge:
paleontology; theology.
The field of ufology comprises a wide "body of knowledge" from various facets of the field, from the evaluation of sighting reports to it's cultural impact.
So including stuff like the film Men In Black under “ufology” is just as crazy as including Jurassic Park under “biology.”
However Jurassic Park may very well be considered as part of the cultural impact of paleontology and therefore a legitimate element of a course within a larger paleontological curriculum. Maybe ask this guy if Jurrasic park shouldn't be something that is touched on as part of a course in paleontology:

- Real 'Jurassic World' Scientist Says We Could Bring Back Dinosaurs As Pets
- Paleontologist John Horner, ‘Jurassic Park’ character inspiration, coming to Chapman University – Orange County Register

This guy was a consultant to Spielberg on the film and is actually speaking at a university. Obviously therefore his contribution can be considered as part of paleontology in in a wider sense than just an archeological dig. Start thinking outside the ketchup bottle.
The cultural stuff that’s about a field of study, isn’t the field of study itself.
The cultural aspect of a field is part of the field of study as a whole. It's just not the part you're focusing on. So again, if you think the film Close Encounters of The Third Kind is not culturally significant, and that ufology culture hasn't got anything to do with it, or that ufology culture isn't part of ufology studies, then you don't have a leg to stand on. It's mentioned as such in ufology reference material because it is both important and relevant. Take it up with Library of Congress and all the other ufologists who see it as a relevant as well. We've done this to death now.
You could do that; it’s not that difficult or expensive: I just don’t know why you would – so many people have already performed that experiment. So I would think it would only be worth doing if you had a new twist to try out.
Yes it's the little twists in various configurations that I'm curious about that I haven't run across being done ( yet ). On the rotating EM fields. I haven't heard of any experiments that have ben done where a GHz rotating field has been applied to a superconducting magnet levitated over a weigh scale. If you have, by all means send me the link.
It is frustrating to not be able to discuss interesting prospective experiments, because that's the most exciting aspect of all this, for me anyway. But when you've invested roughly 40 years of your time and energy and money into an effort to solve an extremely challenging puzzle in an innovative way, then actually come up with a promising idea that you can test out yourself and plan do so, it would be incredibly stupid to talk about it. And ultimately pointless, because the only thing that matters is the result.
Well good luck with it. I'd love to see you in the Newspapers and win a Nobel Prize !
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
The field of ufology comprises a wide "body of knowledge" from various facets of the field, from the evaluation of sighting reports to it's cultural impact.
This is simple: “ufo+logy” means “the study of ufos.” Not “the study of ufos and their influence on Hollywood films,” not “the study of ufos and and the psychological impact of the ufo phenomenon.” Just “the study of ufos.” That’s it – that’s all the word means.

The psychological effects of ufos is an area of study for psychologists. The influence of ufo sightings on culture is a subject for sociologists and historians. And so on.

It’s fine – you want to throw everything even tangentially involving the word “ufo” into one basket. I disagree. Let’s leave it at that.

The cultural aspect of a field is part of the field of study as a whole.
That doesn’t apply to any other area of study and it shouldn’t apply to this one either. It’s up to sociologists and psychologists and what have you to study the cultural influence of various things. Ufology is just the study of ufos, by definition. You’ll never convince me otherwise because your logic doesn’t apply to other equivalent areas of inquiry in the way that you want them to apply here. And thank god – if everyone who wanted to write about the physics of science fiction movies could publish in a physics journal about it, the scientific method would be horribly contaminated and impeded by complete garbage.

Yes it's the little twists in various configurations that I'm curious about that I haven't run across being done ( yet ).
Then you should do it. Setting up experiments is very edifying and ultimately quite exciting. And figuring out the nature of your results is excellent mental exercise.

On the rotating EM fields. I haven't heard of any experiments that have ben done where a GHz rotating field has been applied to a superconducting magnet levitated over a weigh scale. If you have, by all means send me the link.
Can’t say that I have, off-hand. But I see no reason to think that anything of an anomalous gravitational nature will happen, and my work is focused exclusively on that area.

Well good luck with it. I'd love to see you in the Newspapers and win a Nobel Prize !
Haha – I’ve never even thought about that stuff; maybe I should publish under a pseudonym. I only want one thing – to know that we’ve made the first tiny step in the direction of a viable gravitational field propulsion technology by the time my lights are going out. Because once we have the first proof-of-principle experiment pointing the way, then the rest will be inevitable. And it would be nice to have some small hand in that, so the life I’ve sacrificed for it will count for something. But either way, I could die in peace. And right now I can’t do that. Because if we’re stuck on this planet for the next 500 years, it’s going to be an incredibly nightmarish world by then (in many ways it already is)… if we make that far at all.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
... Can’t say that I have, off-hand. But I see no reason to think that anything of an anomalous gravitational nature will happen, and my work is focused exclusively on that area.
The phenomenon of superconducting magnetic levitation was what first inspired me to think of the initial experiment that was done later by a Russian physicist: Here's the overview: Breaking the Law of Gravity

The GHz rotational field is the enhancement I'd suggest trying. Yes it's controversial. So what? What's science about if not trying the experiment to see if it actually works?
 
Last edited:

Realm

Paranormal Adept
That is superficial and incomplete. See the link in my signature line.
I'm really baffled why there's even a need to discuss that "something to do with" is different from "is part of". You have to realize they are different, which I assume is the reason you didn't answer to this:

It's like somebody is asking: What parts does that car contain?
And you answer: This picture of that car. And me, as I'm the driver.
Does that make sense?

With your definitions, if some pseudo-scientists made some crazy claims that involved astronomy, astronomy would be just as much pseudo-science as it's real science, because it would include all that has something to do with it. We would need another term like "scientific astronomy" to differentiate that part which is actually science, but that wouldn't help, as that would automatically have something to do with the rest of that astronomy, and hence that pseudo-science, and it would be pseudo-science as well. It just doesn't work.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
I'm really baffled why there's even a need to discuss that "something to do with" is different from "is part of". You have to realize they are different, which I assume is the reason you didn't answer to this:

It's like somebody is asking: What parts does that car contain?
And you answer: This picture of that car. And me, as I'm the driver.
Does that make sense?
That would not be entirely inaccurate. Every car I've owned has a manual and often other visual materials that describe the vehicle. The driver's manual along with all it's pictures is an important component. And obviously the operator is an important component as well. In fact it could be argued that it's the most important component until driverless cars are the norm. Like I said to Morrison. Get outside the ketchup bottle.



With your definitions, if some pseudo-scientists made some crazy claims that involved astronomy, astronomy would be just as much pseudo-science as it's real science, because it would include all that has something to do with it.
It's more like this: There are quacks in every field. Just like quacks in medicine doesn't make the whole field of medicine quackery, neither do a few pseudoscientists in astronomy or ufology make those fields pseudosciences.
We would need another term like "scientific astronomy" to differentiate that part which is actually science, but that wouldn't help, as that would automatically have something to do with the rest of that astronomy, and hence that pseudo-science, and it would be pseudo-science as well. It just doesn't work.
Thinking of it as I've explained it works just fine. Thinking of it like you've just explained causes a problem, so why not change your thinking? Simply arguing for arguments sake isn't advancing this thread. The whole point is to evolve ufology beyond superficial Wikipedia outlines and provide a well delineated and defined map on he various facets within the field. I started us off with a pretty good example that reflects real areas of interest within ufology. So instead of denying those realities, how about helping with some improvements? Or maybe pick a particular area and describe how it is related to ufology in greater detail. I've already used the Close Encounters movie as a prime example.

Or if you want to focus on the nuts and bolts aspects, how about doing that instead of being critical of areas your not interested in? Create a new set of protocols for interviewing witnesses. Do something constructive !
 
Last edited:

Realm

Paranormal Adept
And obviously the operator is an important component as well. In fact it could be argued that it's the most important component until driverless cars are the norm.
So I'm a component of my car. If I sell my whole car, does the buyer own me too?

why not change your thinking?
I'm not giving up logic and commonly agreed meanings of pretty much every word there is.

The whole point is to evolve ufology beyond superficial Wikipedia outlines and provide a well delineated and defined map on he various facets within the field. I started us off with a pretty good example that reflects real areas of interest within ufology. So instead of denying those realities, how about helping with some improvements?
You just made it meaningless and attempted to break the definitions of pretty much everything, but luckily it doesn't matter in practice, as nobody can use those definitions, since they are based on flawed logic and don't work. My interest is in that ufology that is described in Wikipedia, dictionaries etc. That is the research of UFOs, what that word actually means.

Do something constructive !
Do you seriously think it's constructive to try to fight against commonly agreed definitions?
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
The phenomenon of superconducting magnetic levitation was what first inspired me to think of the initial experiment that was done later by a Russian physicist:
Okay but the Meissner effect is purely magnetic in nature - or rather, diamagnetic in nature. And we have no credible evidence whatsoever that Podkletnov's experiment actually worked. And 20 years later, we still have no credible evidence of gravity shielding, or gravity beams, etc.

So there's no rational motivation that I can see to experiment in that direction, without a compelling theoretical basis in physics.

Whew, that's as depressing to read the second time as it was the first time. Nutty amateurs convincing themselves of imaginary effects, NASA scientists working in barren Kremlin-like conditions, and Podkletnov himself predicting that his work would yield fruit within a decade - but now two have passed with nothing but the sound of crickets filling the air.


The GHz rotational field is the enhancement I'd suggest trying with that to see if it makes any difference. Yes it's controversial. So what? What's science about if not trying the experiment to see if it actually works?
"To see if it makes any difference" is hardly a reasonable motivation for spending years of your life and all of your discretionary time and money on a new project. That's why I spend years studying the outer realms of theoretical physics to identify a single conceptually plausible yet speculative path forward before I commit to an experiment. There may be people out there experimenting with spinning superconductive discs - for them it might not be a big deal to see what happens when they add a GHz signal generator into the mix, on a lark one free weekend. But, thankfully, I'm not yet so bereft of intriguing ideas that I have to stab wildly in the dark looking for some nonspecific anomalous effect with no rational expectation or concept in theory to justify that kind of major experimental undertaking. It's way too easy to piss away your entire life by just saying "what the hell, this might do something" - and while I'd admire the sheer bravado of anyone driven by that free-wheeling spirit of scientific philosophy, I don't have the time or the money or the temperament to proceed in that manner.

There's a sobering sentiment among experimentalists: "it's your idea; you do it." You have my best wishes for the utmost success!
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Do you seriously think it's constructive to try to fight against commonly agreed definitions?
Definitions for things within a field are often more extensive and nuanced than generalized or popular definitions, and what's more, it's the people in the field who drive it forward, not dictionaries. Definitions for things can also vary widely depending on sources and opinions.

Examples:

Paleontology: "the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants." - Google
Paleontology: "the study of the history of life on Earth as based on fossils." - National Geographic

Britannica

"Paleontology, also spelled palaeontology, scientific study of life of the geologic past that involves the analysis of plant and animal fossils, including those of microscopic size, preserved in rocks. It is concerned with all aspects of the biology of ancient life forms: their shape and structure, evolutionary patterns, taxonomic relationships with each other and with modern living species, geographic distribution, and interrelationships with the environment."

Wikipedia

"Paleontology or palaeontology (/ˌpeɪliɒnˈtɒlədʒi, ˌpæli-, -ən-/) is the scientific study of life that existed prior to, and sometimes including, the start of the Holocene Epoch (roughly 11,700 years before present). It includes the study of fossils to determine organisms' evolution and interactions with each other and their environments (their paleoecology)" .... and it goes on from there.

-----------------

We who are in the field of ufology have every right and responsibility to define the field in a way that is accurate and well substantiated by the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. I've done that. In contrast the sorts of counterpoint you have made don't address the field of ufology as a whole. They rely on cherry picking a specific aspect of the field as if that's all there is to it, and arbitrarily dismissing the cultural aspects. You need to do a whole lot better than that if you want me to accept your viewpoint.


So yes, I do think it's constructive to maintain a viewpoint that is better substantiated than one that isn't. If you want me to change my mind then start by making a convincing argument why Close Encounters of the Third Kind has no relevance to the field of ufology and shouldn't be included as part of a course in ufology that deals with the significance of ufology in modern culture.


 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
... Nutty amateurs convincing themselves of imaginary effects ...
A nutty amateur who graduated from the University of Chemical Technology, Mendeleyev Institute, in Moscow; then spent 15 years at the Institute for High Temperatures in the Russian Academy of Sciences, and received a doctorate in materials science from Tampere University of Technology in Finland. - Wikipedia

I'm not convinced that he's a fraud or a hoax, even if his work hasn't been fruitful since he first published his claims. Remember that old saying about the inventor of the light bulb? I applaud anyone who takes a serious stab at coming up with something and I think superconductors and EM fields are part of the solution. But I don't have the credentials or funding to build my own experiments.

At one point Bigelow was recruiting people for this kind of research. Maybe you should try approaching him for funding. I tried getting his attention but never got so much as a reply ... lol. Maybe you'd have more luck because you've already got prototype experiments in the works. Or maybe Musk might be interested. He's forward thinking. Who knows?


- You've probably also heard of this already, but maybe others haven't: Project Greenglow and the battle with gravity
- Here's a brief history of other attempts: History of Electro-Gravity Research - electrogravityphysics.com
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
A nutty amateur who graduated from the University of Chemical Technology, Mendeleyev Institute, in Moscow; then spent 15 years at the Institute for High Temperatures in the Russian Academy of Sciences, and received a doctorate in materials science from Tampere University of Technology in Finland. - Wikipedia
No I was describing the subjects in that article chronologically. John Schnurer was the nutty amateur. Podkletnov obviously isn't an amateur, but I don't accept his claims either. There's no independent credible scientific evidence to support them. I'm not willing to accept claims that extravagant on the word of one man.

I'm not convinced that he's a fraud or a hoax, even if his work hasn't been fruitful since he first published his claims. Remember that old saying about the inventor of the light bulb? I applaud anyone who takes a serious stab at coming up with something and I think superconductors and EM fields are part of the solution. But I don't have the credentials or funding to build my own experiments.
I completely love and support experimentalists - but I insist that the burden of proof lies with them, and Podkletnov has not risen to that challenge and obligation. Talk is cheap. That's why Tesla went around demonstrating his marvelous inventions openly. Superconductors are cool because they're the first macroscopic quantum technology. But they're not magical - they just conduct electricity with essentially zero resistance. That's not a game-changer, but a room-temp superconductor would be a big help for efficiency.

Funding's always a problem - experimental science is expensive. And extremely time consuming: like "multiply your best time estimate by two or three orders of magnitude" time-consuming. But if you're passionate about something, you can teach yourself whatever you need to know; it just takes time and intense focus. Nobody should wither from the challenge of a scientific experiment just because they don't have a sheepskin on their wall - ingenuity is a human birthright, and a tragically unexploited one, imo.

At one point Bigelow was recruiting people for this kind of research. Maybe you should try approaching him for funding. I tried getting his attention but never got so much as a reply ... lol. Maybe you'd have more luck because you've already got prototype experiments in the works. Or maybe Musk might be interested. He's forward thinking. Who knows?
I've considered it briefly, but I think the best way to go, is to produce a proof-of-principle experiment first. Then you can approach somebody like Elon Musk with something significant to offer, and perhaps develop it further with a qualified team of specialists. That way nobody's taking any financial risks but me, and honestly I like putting my money where my mouth is - it keeps me from pursuing fickle ideas.

- You've probably also heard of this already, but maybe others haven't: Project Greenglow and the battle with gravity
Yeah that's a good one. Dr. Dragan Hajdukovic is one of my favorite theorists - the audacity of that guy, lol =) Seriously - Hajdukovic is like a goddamn theoretical physics rock star as far as I'm concerned: he took a fascinating and plausible idea and ran with it, regardless of the mainstream academic consensus. Basically he considered the possibility that antimatter has a negative gravitational charge (i.e. falls up in a gravitational field like the Earth's), and then worked out a theory that explains dark energy and dark matter on the basis of that one fascinating possibility which (still) has yet to be experimentally tested. That guy has balls of steel.

And that hypersensitive gravity detector that responds to the mass of a single person: mind-blowing. Calibrating that thing must be a frickin' nightmare.

That's an interesting page - I look forward to going it over more thoroughly.

But what I think people need to bear in mind is that we already have a very powerful theoretical form of electrogravitics in Einstein's electromagnetic stress-energy tensor. So it's not a hypothetical concept - it's solid mainstream theoretical physics. What we're missing is a bridge to span the enormous gulf between the energy levels described by those mathematics, and the very limited energy densities available with today's technology.

I'm convinced that a bridge does exist. Because if it didn't, that would mean that the first ufo to crash or suffer a containment failure, would vaporize the Earth - or at least sterilize the surface of all life. And my gut tells me that they're not using those magnitudes of energy - it would be insane to risk the entire biosphere of a planet with sentient life by sending a drone to it that could wipe out all of that life with one accident. So they've found a shortcut. That means that we can find it too.

And we will. But I'm terrified that it's a race between the worst of human nature, and the best of human nature, and the worst of human nature (somewhere S.R.I.'s ears are burning) is not only absolutely winning on every front, but the pulse of hope is rapidly fading for a future that's worth living for.
 
Last edited:

Realm

Paranormal Adept
We who are in the field of ufology

Which now includes skeptics, comic artists etc., right?

have every right and responsibility to define the field in a way that is accurate and well substantiated by the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.
And those who wrote that Wikipedia article used that right and responsibility, right? They are just as much part of that field by your definitions, right?

I've done that.
So how many have actually accepted your version of the definition? Is it used by someone/somewhere else?

In contrast the sorts of counterpoint you have made don't address the field of ufology as a whole. They rely on cherry picking a specific aspect of the field as if that's all there is to it, and arbitrarily dismissing the cultural aspects.

So what do you call that part of the field that is about the actual serious research of UFOs? I mean this part:
study of reports, visual records, physical evidence, and other phenomena related to unidentified flying objects.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
... So what do you call that part of the field that is about the actual serious research of UFOs? I mean this part:
Sorry for the extended delay here. The various facets of the field are roughly outlined in the flow chart below:

7287

The part you're referring to would fall mainly under Ufology Studies and to some extent include serious documentaries, which are under the Entertainment sub-heading. As you can see from a larger perspective, while it's true that the task of peering through a microscope ( Lab Work ) has little to do with the Arts, the Arts can meaningfully convey to the layperson what it is the lab tech is doing and why it's important. Unifying the field in this way produces a much more complete picture of ufology as a field, and it's this sort of clarity that is required if it's going to gain academic acceptance.
 



Top